How should we evaluate Darwin and Wallace's arguments for common ancestry over separate ancestry? Elliott Sober defends a likelihood reconstruction of Darwin's reasoning that he dubs modus Darwin: similarity, therefore common ancestry. One assumption of Sober's approach is that separate ancestors have traits that are probabilistically independent. I motivate an objection to this assumption by appeal to 19th century naturalist alternatives such as those of Geoffroy and Owen. On Geoffroy and Owen's separate ancestry models, the ancestors can have traits that are probabilistically dependent. I then prove a generalization of Sober's approach that allows for similarity matching among traits to favour common ancestry over separate ancestry even when the traits of the separate ancestors are probabilistically dependent. I consider Helgeson's recent criticisms of Sober's approach and his alternative interpretation of Darwin's reasoning: more similar, hence, more recent common ancestry. I defend Sober's approach against Helgeson's objections.

Christopher Stephens

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is dedicated to the integrated study of the history, philosophy, and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions in both the established areas of the history and philosophy of science, as well as in topical areas such as the historiography of science, the relationship of science to gender, culture, and society, and the relationship of science to the arts. The journal has an international scope and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.

《Studies in History and Philosophy of Science》致力于科学历史、哲学和社会学的综合研究。编辑们鼓励在科学历史和科学哲学的传统领域，以及科学史学、科学与性别、文化和社会的关系，以及科学与艺术的关系等专题领域投稿。该期刊具有国际视野，内容广泛，欢迎来自不同国家和文化传统的论文。

Category	Quartile
哲学	2
哲学, 科学史与科学哲学	3

Modus Darwin redux

ivySCI AI Smartly Parses PDF, Answers Researchers' Questions, and Helps You Understand Papers in Seconds

Journal Info

Category	Quartile
HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE	1